Vehicle owners have always sought out a better way to mount an apparatus to their vehicle for transporting cargo including bicycles, wheel chairs, tool boxes, motorcycles, personal watercrafts and all terrain vehicles. Information relevant to address this problem can be found in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,084,736, 4,738,581, 4,741,660, 4,775,282, 5,011,361, 5,431,522, 5,482,424, 5,806,737, 5,816,763, 5,984,613, 6,007,290, and D430,533. Each one of these references suffers from one or more of the disadvantages described in the following paragraphs.
Each of the references that employ a lifting device to raise the cargo off the ground and into the desired traveling position relies solely on the lifting device to support the cargo when the vehicle is traveling. This is a disadvantage because the lifting device must be designed not only to lift the cargo off the ground and into the desired traveling position, but the lifting device must also support the additional impact forces on the lifting device encountered when the vehicle is traveling. The additional impact forces on the lifting device during travel can occur for a variety of reasons, including bumps in the road, potholes, vehicle acceleration and vehicle deceleration.
The additional impact forces on the lifting device during travel are magnified when the vehicle is driven on non-paved roads (“off-road”) because of the uneven and often unpredictable driving surface encountered in off-road situations. Vehicle owners transporting the cargo such as motorcycles, all terrain vehicles and personal watercraft often drive their vehicle and cargo off-road.
The increased downward forces on the lifting device during travel require the cargo-lifting device must be designed not only to lift the cargo itself, but also support the cargo during travel. If the lifting device was used only to lift the cargo into the traveling position and not support the additional downward forces during travel, the lifting device could be smaller, lighter and less expensive.
Another disadvantage of the references that employ a lifting device to raise the cargo into the traveling position is that those references use the lifting device as the sole means for supporting the cargo during travel. This is a significant disadvantage because if the lifting device fails while the vehicle is traveling, significant damage could result to the cargo, the vehicle, the driver, any passengers in the vehicle, nearby pedestrians or nearby vehicles. A solution that provides redundant support for the cargo if the lifting device fails during travel would be a significant advantage.
Another disadvantage of the references is that many of them are aimed at the lighter weight cargo (i.e., bicycles, wheelchairs, and toolboxes). Heavier cargo, such as motorocycles, personal watercrafts and all terrain vehicles are many times heavier than the heaviest electric wheel chair. Accordingly, many of the proposed solutions for transporting lighter weight cargo are not appropriate and can not support heavier cargo.
Another disadvantage of the references is that it takes more than one person to mount the transport apparatus to the vehicle and more than one person to load the cargo. A solution that allowed one person to complete the process without assistance would be a significant improvement.
Presently, no solution is known that (1) relieves the lifting device from the additional downward impact forces encountered during travel, (2) provides redundant support for the cargo if the lifting means failed during travel, or (3) allows one person to mount the apparatus to the vehicle and load the cargo. For the foregoing reasons, a need exists for a high strength vehicle-mounted transport apparatus that allows for a smaller capacity lifting device, provides redundant support during travel, and can be installed by one person.